Tuesday, August 03, 2004

”Gentlemen. We’ve got to protect our phony-baloney jobs!”One of the behaviors that is most guaranteed to make me cynical about our political system is the tendency of our leaders to let themselves be stampeded by events and the news cycle.

A tragedy happens. A photogenic blond girl named Betsy, who lives in Idaho, is kidnapped, raped, and killed. The story gets national news play for two weeks while the townspeople search for her and discover the horrible truth. For those two weeks people all across America wear ribbons of Betsy’s favorite colors. After the tragic denouement, our leaders gather, and pass a bill making it a federal crime kidnap, rape, and kill photogenic blond girls. They call it “Betsy’s Law” and it passes by a massive majority. Then they all go home and campaign for re-election on the basis of having led the fight for “Betsy’s Law.”

Why did they need to make it a federal crime kidnap, rape, and kill photogenic blond girls? Was there some gaping hole in the Idaho law code that made it legal there? Did the people of Idaho feel that kidnapping, raping, and killing photogenic blond girls is a part of their traditional culture that shouldn’t be criminalized? No and hell no. Kidnapping, raping, and killing photogenic blond girls is illegal in every state in the union. Even Alabama. Our leaders in Washington passed a completely unnecessary law and added a layer of federal intrusion into perfectly adequate state law enforcement. Why?

The cold fact is that when a highly publicized tragedy occurs, our leaders feel that they must be seen doing something. On a psychological level, the more the tragedy makes us feel helpless, the more they are inclined to leap into that void and be seen helping. The annoying part of all this is that they are not compelled to do something actually helpful, they are just drawn to tragedy by the desire to be seen. Sadly, that “oh my gawd, we’ve got to do something” instinct is independent of whether the something is helpful, stupid, or actually counterproductive.

Sometimes this rush to be in front of the camera “doing something” is just embarrassing and silly, as when first term state legislators try to ban this season’s teen fad because they find it offensive. Sometimes it creates real problems, as with mandatory sentencing guidelines. Sometimes it endangers the republic, as when congress passed the Patriot Act without actually reading it first.

All of this is by way of introducing the current unseemly rush to be the first to claim credit for endorsing the “Intelligence Czar.”

“Oh my gawd, we’ve got to have an ‘Intelligence Czar.’”

“What will he do?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“How much will he cost?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“How will he relate to the existing intelligence structure?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“Who will he be answerable to?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“Wasn’t the Department of Homeland Security created to do what he’s supposed to do?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“Wasn’t the National Security Council created to do what he’s supposed to do?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“Isn’t the Director of Central Intelligence already supposed to do what he’s supposed to do?”

“I don’t know, but we’ve got to have one.”

“Shouldn’t we think this through first?”

“No time. Gotta do something.”

I’m not, in principle, opposed to having someone somewhere coordinate our various intelligence gathering efforts and intelligence interpreting projects. But I do have a lot of preferences about who does it, where they fit in the power structure, who they answer to, what protections for our civil rights are included in their mandate, and so on. I am also, in principle, opposed to the name “Intelligence Czar.” The original model for Czardom was a bunch of feeble-minded, unbounded thugs more concerned with protecting their hereditary privileges than with helping the people of their country (I’m also opposed to the spelling “czar;” “tsar” is more accurate in English orthography.).

For once can we have an intelligent debate about what we need instead of an unseemly and dangerous stampede to claim brownie points in time for the election? Probably not. Sigh.